An Unusual Presentation of a Massive Pulmonary Embolism with Misleading Investigation Results Treated with Tenecteplase
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background. There is no foolproof strategy to identify a pulmonary embolism (PE) in the emergency department, and atypical presentations are common. Negative test results may mislead physicians away from the diagnosis of PE. Objectives. The current report aims to raise awareness of an unusual presentation of massive PE and its diagnosis and management, in the face of limited evidence in the scientific literature. Case Reports. We report the case of a patient with a negative D-Dimer and a negative Computed Tomography contrast angiography of the chest who was diagnosed twenty-seven hours later with a massive PE, as suggested by a bedside echocardiography. The patient was successfully treated with tenecteplase (TNK). Conclusions/Summary. Pulmonary embolism frequently presents atypically and is often a diagnostic challenge. There is limited literature about the treatment of massive PE. Further research on bedside echocardiography for diagnosing PE in unstable patients is warranted. In addition, further study into new thrombolytic agents like tenecteplase in the context of massive and submassive PE is warranted.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".